I'm a little confused. | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

I'm a little confused.

Phinatic8u

Phinatic8u

Club Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2008
Messages
20,645
Reaction score
11,376
Location
South Carolinia
How and the hell does ESPN come up with the QBR stat?

Tannehill had a 48? for the game with 50 being average, yet Big Ben has a meh game with no scores and has a 55..

excuse my ignorance on this one.
 
I think because Tannehill had a turnover.
 
No one knows. ESPN has never posted the full formula used to calculate QBR. Apparently, if you were willing to go to some sports statistics conference several years ago when they introduced the statistic, they would have been happy to answer your questions.

What is known is that it includes advanced stats (WPA and EPA) in some capacity and that there is also a so-called 'clutch' factor that takes into account the result of the game and the quarterback's defense/special teams help.

For instance, Ryan Tannehill probably jumped about 10 points in QBR after throwing the game winning touchdown to Parker. If the ensuing kickoff had been run back for 100 yards and a touchdown, his QBR would have dropped that ten points because of the 'clutch' factor. I'm not making this up, btw. It's a very stupid made-up stat.

I have argued for years that the 'hidden' factors in QBR are manipulated in timely fashion so that ESPN can hype up Monday Night games in which said quarterbacks will be featured. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for them to hold back from releasing the full formula.
 
It is very stupid and it is one reason why I never, ever, ever cite Total QBR in any discussion of anything, ever.

Passer Rating is a much better statistic, even though it has the flaw of placing too much emphasis on completion percentage rather than production per attempt.
 
J. David Wannyheimer said:
It is very stupid and it is one reason why I never, ever, ever cite Total QBR in any discussion of anything, ever.

Passer Rating is a much better statistic, even though it has the flaw of placing too much emphasis on completion percentage rather than production per attempt.
Click to expand...

Both are flawed but I've never seen anyone but Skip Bayless cite QBR.

That's about all we need to know there :lol:
 
That's why I don't care for qbr or qb ratings.

They give far to much credit for effeciency.
 
QBR is meaningless really. It drives me nuts when people cite it. ESPN's sounds moronic and the "official" one makes me crazy because you can't use it to look across generations of QBs. So people think "everyone" is a good QB now vs yesteryear. Unitas had like a 70 QBR for his career. Bob Griese led the league in the late 70's one year w an 80 QBR. It's so relative and as pointed out its too heavily weighted on completion % as evidenced by the fact that average QBRs have jumped since rules have made it easier to complete passes. I'll take Unitas and his 70 QBR over pretty much every QB in football today.
 
Well considering our offense was one of the worst offenses I've ever seen until finally showing up with six minutes left in the game...........yeah I can understand that rating even with the late game heroics. Our offense was so bad I could barley stand to watch it. Can't believe we won that game
 
I thought QBR measured how much a QB contributes toward the team winning. If that's the case Tannehills QBR should be higher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom